the Wakefield Doctrine

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Hey, don’t laugh scott (well, actually, go ahead, from you we enjoy it)…rogers, don’t blame us (look around, do you see anyone else storming off in a cloud of offended sensibilities?)… you read the title a second ago, you knew what the words were intended to convey and, yet, you’re are still reading.

Actually, this tendency to engage in creative malapropism provides us with two, if not three, insights and useful illustrations of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine. These two, (or three), would be ‘the Everything Rule’ and (an) insight into the personal reality of the Outsider(clarks).

Being Monday, let’s do the second thing first.

Outsider(clarks) This is the term for the person who grows up, (and develops their social interaction strategies), apart from. The typical clark begins each day considering the challenges and rewards awaiting them in the world, out there. This predominant worldview is characterized by interacting with the world, (and the people who make it up), at a distance. A common ‘mistake’* is to think of clarks as simply being ‘introverts‘ or ‘very shy‘ or ‘he is weird but harmless‘ or ‘she dresses funny and seems stuck-up, but really is quite nice‘. All descriptions are permissible, provided one additional character trait is included: clarks abhor being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored. So this is your Outsider. They’re there today, all around you. You just have to look. Quietly without fanfare. (How do you think they’ve managed to stay off the social/interpersonal radar this long?)

Among the many tools the Wakefield Doctrine provides us for learning about the world, counting pronouns is one of the more low-key search ways to identify a(nother) person’s predominant worldview. clarks tend towards the 3rd person impersonal (sic lol). No, seriously we do!

Back to the Outsider. clarks think (scotts act and rogers feel), the reality of a clark is that of the intellect. You’re hitch-hiking cross-country and you get a ride in a car that’s old but the interior is clean? You’re riding along and finally, after a length of time passes that assures you the price of the ride is not endless conversation, the driver asks for something from the glove compartment***. You’re happy to comply. Pushing the chromium button, there’s avalance of those little rectangular plastic packets of ketuchup and mustard mixed in with paper container-ettes of sugar and salt.

The car is the intellect. The contents of the glove box emotion. Your driver is a clark.

Enough with the roundabout.

As are we all, clarks are born with the capacity/ability/capability to experience the world as one-half of three characteristic relationships: as the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers). Once we settle into one, we proceed to grow and mature and develop our strategies (aka personality type) appropriate to the world as we experience it. The thing with clarks is that we almost immediately notice that everyone else, (or so it seems, not yet having a Doctrine), knows what to do to be a part of the world. Family members appear quite familiar to each other (and prefer it that way) friends at school (or pre-school or job sites) are either already friends or don’t care too much about friends while still not being strange.

the typical clark comes to the conclusion, (after much thought, introspection, consideration …all the ‘ations’ except conversation) (lol) that clearly, since the world makes sense to everyone around them, they, the clark, must have missed a lesson. Maybe they over-slept the day ‘You and Your Fellow Humans‘ class was being taught. And so, the characteristic curiosity of the clark. We’re forever interested in new facts, different ways of looking at things… quietly, mind you. Because the second most important thing about the desire to learn is the need to do it alone.

We search for the secret of being a real person.

…hey! where the heck did the time go?!!

ok…. one, little baby reprint. Remind us to pick up the thread at ‘how is it clarks are so comfortable making up words and such?’

(here ya go, from…)

Hey! sorry! got no little, baby Monday posts! lol Serially. I musta got all enamored with the whole reprint thing way back. Besides, we at, like, seven hundred words which, in the early, pre-I-need-to-write-more-to-learn-to-write-good phase, five hundred words was, like, holy smoke, who let the roger sit down at the keyboard?

* not really a mistake, as the Doctrine is not subjecting itself to the rigor and discipline of academic scrutiny. A mistake is only possible among equals (the alternative construct would be condemnation and blind hero worship)… but that’s not important now**

** ‘Airplane!’ (1980)

*** do they still call them that? What the heck sense would that make to anyone under the age of eighty-nine?

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

What say we do a quick reprint and see if’n we can’t come up with a new(ish) insight into the use and application of everybody’s favorite ‘personality theory’?

Got it! (ish)

What do the three worldviews fear the most in life.

Follow-up question: why is the word ‘fear’ not the best word in this context?

but first the reprint.

whoa whoa whoa!… Stop.

Best we contribute whatever novel insight into the use of the Wakefield Doctrine, before you enjoy today’s RePrint.

What the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine fear the most:

1. clarks(Outsiders) scrutiny (yeah, big surprise there) to be subject to inquiry without consent
2. scotts(Predators) non-rational unreliability. (yeah, like the old punchline, ‘that’s a pretty big word for an ‘action-is-everything’ personality type). (True backstory: Once in a discussion with Glenn(scott-with-secondary-clarklike-aspect) about the Doctrine, we suggested that, as clarks, there is nothing that is permanent to the world, that if today we awoke to a sky that was green with orange polka dots, we’d shrug and get on with the day. Glen’s response was, ‘That would be intolerable (to a scott), the natural world needs to be…natural and consistent, there have to be some standards.’
3. rogers(Herd Members) disassociation. To be rejected, as an individual, from association with others, even, (and especially), if that chosen association is confined to the individual roger (Membership in a Herd is not dependent on a separate, independent acceptance by a member or members of said Herd. The individual roger needs only to accept the Herdosity of a group, a virtue of belonging and their own willingness to be associated. Don’t believe us? Go ask a roger.

The follow-up question: the short answer is, as so often, ‘the Everything Rule’. In this context means that how ‘fear’ manifests is subject to the nature/character of the reality in the individual’s predominant worldview.

Ok now on to the Reprint.

*

don’t worry, nothing nearly as strange/cool/frickin great as you think

June 3, 2010

Let me start by saying “whether due to cultural dislocation or totally subliminal deviancy, my personal opinion is that most of (Rockwell’s) paintings come across banal at best, creepy at worst”. (This is the cue for the rogerian art fans to start howling, in their bovine basso profundo voices, the chorus being…”but it shows what we once were”)

Sure, roger, take your wasn’t it wonderful past and your family history and your abused children and your paedofilic authority figures and tell us why you love them all so very much.  Sure roger, the predators were for the most part scotts, at least the obvious ones.  Sure the past was a great time…if you had power. But as the adage goes, “history is written by the victors” and this is so much truer for the cultural winners and losers as it was for the military/political adversaries.

So, what’s the deal with the photos today?  Well first I do want to thank our dead artist for the loanation of copies of his quote art unquote.  I really don’t know what set this off in today’s Post.  The ‘Lead’ photo was the most difficult, I kept coming back to it.  Looking through all the Rockwell I could find in the searching for a photo that would show all three of us (clarks, scotts and rogers), was not having much luck.  But the photo I am starting with has something so damn clarklike to it that I decided to use it. (The fact of the process was: “I do not know how I can incorporate this into the Post in any logical way, but I have to use it”) Hey, call it the vanity of the author.

Show of hands people, the Lead photo who does not see a clark? (hey clarks!! come out from under the bed! lol no one is going to say anything bad here, come on, join the “conversation” lol).  Let’s just rorschach this one and move on to the main photo.  This is the photo you see when you click on the read more link, the one on this page, knuckleheads.
Now we can get down to Doctrine business.  We have a photo that contains 2 scotts a roger and a clark. (and not too much abuse or predation, either!)

(Now I know you are all capable of making allowances for culturally anachronistic features) so, what do you see in the picture above?

Screw that…What do you see here?

 Yeah, another damn clark.

(I cannot tell you what the deal is with the clarks today.  Really, no games, not holding out for dramatic purpose, just don’t know.  Let’s just call it the horrifyingly familiar tint of fear that is the hallmark of clarks, it is jumping out at me in this, quote art unquote.)

…if clarks are to be the topic of today’s Post, let’s have at it.
Maybe it has been the Rockwell art overload, but I keep getting drawn back to the idea of what a culture does to encourage children to stay on whatever path they have ended up on i.e. being a clark/scott/roger.
(If we had Wakefield Doctrine study guides, this would be highlit in yellow with a EXAM QUESTION mark next to it)

…as the Doctrine tells us, we all start life with the qualities of all three (clarks, scotts and rogers) and for reasons beyond the scope of this explanation we become mostly one of the three. This usually occurs at an early age, say  3 to 5 years old and we settle into experiencing the reality of the one we picked. (except for clarks).

So what is the deal with clarks and their strangeness?  Well it’s real damn simple, clarks are the outsiders, the blue monkeys, the strange ones.  In a school yard they will be the last to be picked for team sports and in the gymnasium they be the last to be asked to dance.  I can hear our rogerian Readers now (I’m talking to you, MJM) I can hear them saying in a voice that is meant to be caring and helpful but is, in fact, strident and insisting, “If only you would dress a little nicer, why do you have to wear that, you really are an attractive, nice person but you put people off…why do you keep doing that to yourself”?

(Today’s Post  has now officially careened right the fuck out of control.  I will no long be responsible for syntax, logic, reasonable conclusion or making sense to anyone other than our clarklike readers…)

So clarks are the outsiders but they are also the creative ones.  While rogers may build (being engineers and all) clarks create the ideas that they will bring to the world.  And while scotts are the leaders, they always,  (Did I say ALWAYS? ) (you know I did mean to say Always) scotts have clarks standing out of sight, off to stage left, telling them things about their audience/followers/mob that the scott will then pronounce and shape into power.

(What time is it?!!)

“You’re such a lovely audience, we’d like to take you home with us”

Hell, let’s have that for our music vid

This a Post that made no sense at all? Ask a clark to explain it to you, there is one nearby…you just haven’t had the time to bother with them…go ahead ask them, they will explain this all to you, but you roger will get annoyed when it becomes obvious that it does not center on you  and you, scott will get bored ’cause it doesn’t have loud explosions in it.

*